Code Enforcement Demolitions are set to begin (Blight initiative)

[iloveionia]

I first bought in 2007. Two years ago I moved my Dad to Ionia street from rural New England. He came kicking and screaming (for more reasons other than it was Springfield.) His time in the neighborhood has had a profound impact on his attitudes and beliefs about people, social class, and old historic homes. He relishes in making relationships with neighbors and watching the 10+ year condemned homes being rehabbed and he dabbles pretty strongly in his own preservation restoration efforts as well. There are three houses on his block of old homes being loved. Leaving two left to be done. There are three vacant lots (I own one) with nothing being built. There is WAY more rehab of homes than new construction in all of Spfld. The chances of someone coming in and rehabbing is far more likely than someone coming in to build. No expertise to know this, all one has to do is look around and see.

Had the city cared about Springfield as much as its vested home owners/residents, the "post apocalyptic freak show" you speak of would have been lessened tremendously. When cities invest in their neighborhoods, places like Springfield become a catalyst for urban renewal and economic prosperity for a city. THAT OPPORTUNITY STILL EXISTS. RESTORATION, RENOVATION, REHAB OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IS ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY WISE. But the City of Jacksonville breeds a culture of the opposite. A culture where politics, money, and ignorance win.

Enough is enough. Use the money to place the homes in the hands of a willing and capable owner. Individual, non-profit, business, whatever. Tearing them down leaves a vacant lot marred with liens making any sale impossible. We've got enough damn over-grown lots. Save the houses. Spfld isn't a war zone (anymore.) The naysayers need to research preservation and urban renewal or go find some gated community to live in.

[JaxUnicorn]

Why is everyone getting worked up over this?  If the properties are owned outright by the landowners then they have a clean lot to work with after the demo.  It's easier to sell or develop this way.  If a mortgage or tax lien is on the property and it's in a serious state of disrepair then the owner doesn't have the resources to own property and has no business creating a nusiance for the responsible neighbors who pay their bills and take care of their lawn and house.

To anyone that is shocked that 500 homes were demolished in Springfield...did you even go into Springfield before the demos took place?  The place was a straight up war zone with addicts sleeping in and under vacant houses, crawling out just to eat at soup kitchens and beg or steal for drug/beer money.  It was a post-apocalytic freak show and that's no exaggeration.

The bandwagon jumpers on this board, who think the city is out of line, probably live in some gated community or nice enclave where there aren't nuisance properties.  To any of the folks that think demolishing nusiance properties is a travesty...I suggest you take up residence next to one of these lovely homes and then come back and post how you feel.

NaldoAveKnight, "...a clean lot to work with after the demo" and "It's easier to sell or develop this way."  Are you freaking kidding me?  While I agree that property should be taken care of, allowing the City to illegally demolish a structurally sound home (hell, maybe even those that are not structurally sound) is ludicrous.  IF the City is going to demolish, they should at least take ownership first - but then (I've heard) they don't want to be in real estate.  Once a structure is demolished, a lien is placed on the property that must be paid or settled before the owner can sell the property.  How does that make it "easier to sell or develop"? 

Demolishing structurally sound buildings does nothing to help stabilize a neighborhood.  What it does is reduce the tax base (reduced property taxes) and causes more nuisance issues the City must deal with (if someone isn't taking care of their property while the home is on it, you can bet the farm they certainly won't after it is demolished!).  Demolishing structures in a nationally recognized historic district is in direct conflict to Jacksonville's City Ordinance Chapter 307.113 which states,

In determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

Historic demolitions by Code Enforcement are against the law.

Yes there was a time when Springfield had way more problems than we have today.  The more good people who move into a neighborhood will eventually force the bad to go elsewhere.  Good people who will not tolerate prostitution and drug dealing.  Things have gotten significantly better!! 

I am not a "bandwagon jumper", nor do I live in "some gated community."  I was here before the Springfield demolitions took place and I'm still here now.  When did you live here?  And why are you NOT worked up about this?

Oh, and learn how to spell nuisance....

[NaldoAveKnight]

Really?  2007?  That was after all of the gentrification took place.  That was after millions of dollars in facade grants from the city poured in.  I think they were giving out $25k per home.  That was after the city spent millions on infrastructure improvements with new roads, sidewalks and streetscapes.  That was after the city wrote off millions in back taxes so urban pioneers could take possession of decrepit properties to rehab and live in them.  In 2002 I remember this guy driving from California in a little Toyota truck with tools and a few grand.  He got an abandoned property from the city for $4,000 and started work.  There's dozens of stories like this...  There's no excuse for a nuisance property at this point, not after all the blood, sweat, tears, and money that people and the city have invested.  It's time to take responsibility for your property or sell it.

[iloveionia]

Many properties lie in the hands of cancerous LLC investor schemes like Tarpon and Tuba.
The city should sieze properties of these scam investment companies early on and place in the hands of viable owners.

The recession, due to poor lending practices, damaged many neighborhoods including Spfld. But no need for an excuse. Ignorance and bully tactics lead Jax where cowardice and lackadaisical behaviors are accepted by many.

Section 106 reviews anyone?

[strider]

The implication that an empty house is the cause of the criminal activity in an area is a favored claim of the pro demolition group.  It is an easy explanation, one that politicians like because it can be made to sound true to the masses.  It is great cover for the real issues that the politicians never seem able to truly address. 

The fact is this.  I have never had an old house come up to me and stick a gun in my face.  I have never had a house offer me sex for money or try to sell me crack. In fact, I once had the JSO take a house of mine to the HPC to ask it be demolished because it was a haven for criminal activity.  The funny thing was that at the time, I was storing thousands of dollars worth of kitchen cabinets in it and never had an issue with break-ins.  Part of the facts of that case was simply that the safely boarded condemned house was paying more in property taxes at the time than the average homesteaded house in all of Jacksonville.  The truth was that a developer wanted the empty lots.  He never did get his wish and I eventually sold the house.  It is gone today because once in the MCCD system of demolitions, it is difficult to get out of it.

Demolitions of houses are seldom done for the reasons people believe they are.  It is never done to help the communities regardless of what the rhetoric may be.  The loss of thousands of houses from the urban core will not help the residents even in the long term.  But it helps someones bottom line.  Perhaps instead of buying into the rhetoric, you should go and start asking who profits from these demolitions and the loss of housing stock in the poorer communities of Jacksonville.

This may sound like I do not believe anyone should profit from this ordinance.  Not true as I think the communities can profit and those that enable that to happen should profit. Simply not from demolition but from saving and rehabbing these houses.  Follow the entire ordinance and take these house and give them to those who can rehab and thereby allowing everyone involved to profit, not just the politicians and demo contractors.

[JaxUnicorn]

The implication that an empty house is the cause of the criminal activity in an area is a favored claim of the pro demolition group.  It is an easy explanation, one that politicians like because it can be made to sound true to the masses.  It is great cover for the real issues that the politicians never seem able to truly address. 

The fact is this.  I have never had an old house come up to me and stick a gun in my face.  I have never had a house offer me sex for money or try to sell me crack. In fact, I once had the JSO take a house of mine to the HPC to ask it be demolished because it was a haven for criminal activity.  The funny thing was that at the time, I was storing thousands of dollars worth of kitchen cabinets in it and never had an issue with break-ins.  Part of the facts of that case was simply that the safely boarded condemned house was paying more in property taxes at the time than the average homesteaded house in all of Jacksonville.  The truth was that a developer wanted the empty lots.  He never did get his wish and I eventually sold the house.  It is gone today because once in the MCCD system of demolitions, it is difficult to get out of it.

Demolitions of houses are seldom done for the reasons people believe they are.  It is never done to help the communities regardless of what the rhetoric may be.  The loss of thousands of houses from the urban core will not help the residents even in the long term.  But it helps someones bottom line.  Perhaps instead of buying into the rhetoric, you should go and start asking who profits from these demolitions and the loss of housing stock in the poorer communities of Jacksonville.

This may sound like I do not believe anyone should profit from this ordinance.  Not true as I think the communities can profit and those that enable that to happen should profit. Simply not from demolition but from saving and rehabbing these houses.  Follow the entire ordinance and take these house and give them to those who can rehab and thereby allowing everyone involved to profit, not just the politicians and demo contractors.

Problem is these are city employees taking the easiest path to "fix" this problem. I don't know the exact process but it has to be a helluva lot easier for the city employee to demo and attach a lien than (I assume the process would be something like) fine or lien, then foreclose on fines/liens to take possession then vet private investors or non profits then sell or transfer title to them free, then let them remodel.
Plus it doesn't sound like any investors or np's have inquired or pushed for that option very hard.

Just because it is easy certainly does not make it LEGAL.

[edjax]

When can we get Berkman Plaza2 added to the list? 

[Lunican]

Jacksonville = Gary, Ind?

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/02/how-gary-indiana-got-serious-about-tackling-blight/386159/

[sheclown]

Except Jax isn't losing population

[strider]

Actually, for a city like Gary, the program they seem to be developing makes sense.  They are worried about the environmental impacts.  They are worried about the social impacts.   They are trying to determine how to handle what happens after the demolitions.  They are considering the future in their decisions.  Frankly, Jacksonville seems not only incapable of that, the current leadership does not want to.

Gary has lost more than half of its population since its peak of about 178,000 in 1960.

Of course, that is totally besides the point unless or until the above statement is valid for Jacksonville.  Instead, we are increasing our population and our leadership seems to be supporting increased new residential development while we tear down our historic housing stock. 

[thelakelander]

We appear to be supporting (at least in our actions) and praying for a return of a 1990s land development pattern. Maybe Jax knows something the rest of the world doesn't?

[JaxUnicorn]

UPDATE:

Of the 40 properties on the list provided originally in this thread, 19 of them have now  been "released for demolition" by Historic Planning.

2146 Thelma Street
2440 Cesery Boulevard
1884 East 25th Street
1861 Alfren Street
914 Baker Avenue
3316 North Canal Street
5707 Cooke Street
8747 Eaton Avenue
9505 Flechette Avenue
2858 Haddock Road
5115 Hancock Road
5104 Highway Avenue
8036 Hogan Road
1098 Huron Street
2517 Janette Street
2314 Johnson Avenue
7463 North Laura Street
8521 New Kings Road
6033 Peeler Road South
5367 River Forest Drive
6195 118th Street

I  have also learned that there are an ADDITIONAL 109 property addresses slated for demolition by Code Enforcement provided to Historic Planning to research whether they are historic.  Historic Planning has been given one week (YES, ONLY ONE WEEK) to complete the historic review to determine if any of the 149 properties have any historic value.  Researching a single property to determine historic value could take WEEKS. 

The recently passed Bill 2014-427 defined Historic as follows:

Historic Structure shall mean any structure, fifty years old or older, and that is designated a City of Jacksonville landmark; a contributing property in a City of Jacksonville historic district; listed on the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places or a contributing structure in a National Register district; or has been determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, individually or as contributing to a potential district based on the Florida Master Site File or with respect to any other structure over fifty years old as determined by the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to be eligible for such listing.

How is it even remotely possible for the Jacksonville Planning and Development Department to determine historic eligibility on 149 properties in a week's time? 
The answer:  it's not possible.  Which means the City is blantantly ignoring the newly passed Ordinance. 

This is getting way out of hand......

[I-10east]

The extreme idea of stopping growth from expanding outward (building in the suburbs) in a growing city, and concentrating exclusively of old stock (many old ran down houses in ghettos) is futile. You all don't have to like that fact as urban conservationists, but it's a sensical reality that's going on in America's cities.

You have to stop and think as an urban conservationist "Would I live on Rushing Street?" or "Would I live on Spearing Street?" let alone a house in good condition within those areas. I'm not shaming low income areas, because I've lived in them most of my life. Would you live in a non-gentrified high crime area? Most people live in Jacksonville high crime areas to A; Get by, B; They are part of the crime element themselves, or C; They are part of the dying old school that have their home paid for. That's it, no millennials or none of that crap.

Many aging homes that have seen better days in a place like Springfield is doable for many families; The house probably has historical charm, and architectural elements despite having old school features like small rooms; Contrast that to much of the stuff shown on these 'save everything' threads, and oh boy...Can you imagine being a 'House Hunters' real estate agent displaying a fixer upper house on Hart St somewhere? Yeah, see how that works out...

My thing isn't even to waste money to tear down all old homes in less desired neighborhoods like many think. I think that the worst of the worst deteriorated homes the present a major safety issue should be torn down. I think homes that have HISTORICAL ELEMENTS or someone famous lived there etc should be saved. As for some 'historical' house that's a nondescript shack with a rusted tin roof? As long as it isn't a safety hazard, let it and many like it sit there, sad to say. Wasting money fixing up old small homes (that no one will live in) with no historical elements in high crime areas is crazy to me just like tearing down sturdy homes. 

I lived on 341 Nixon St (moved out in 2010). It was bad enough as it was (with draft cracks, no adequate heating, uneven flooring etc etc). Next door to the right still stands 345 Nixon St. This is the type of 'tear down worthy' house that I'm talking about; Homeless in and out, and no telling what else. Yes, I rather had lived next to an empty lot than 345 Nixon. No one will probably ever live in 345 Nixon St; This house will NOT be torn down because the owner comes by and mows the yard, make sure the boarded windows (at the time) are secure etc. This is reality in contrast to the paranoid hysteria about every old raggedy home biting the dust in Jacksonville.

PS: Comparing Jax to Gary is ludicrous, no matter how you wanna shake it...   

[I-10east]

These old vacant homes are constantly being set ablaze by arsonists in Jax. Imagine if you and your family lived next to one that went ablaze. I'll just leave it at that.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/jfrd-firefighters-battle-house-fire-on-eastside/31596036

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2nd-eastside-house-burns-on-same-night/31599484

[thelakelander]

I doubt being vacant serves as a reason to demolish. Just imagine if you lived next to an occupied house that went ablaze. It happens.  A few of the houses on the demo list were occupied until they caught on fire.